i can't quite understand why this would be a good time for iran to make such agressive statements, hardly a good way to get the world to trust they will use nuclear technology for peacful (or even defensive) purposes. ...this isn't a cleric or a politician trying to gain power...but the president of iran! this simply can't end well.

I think he´s looking for allies amongst the rest of the arrab world, hoping for aid against the U.S. invasion that seems unavoidable. I think that´s a smart move; currently the U.S. seems to want to try and pick off those countries one by one with at the moment some amount of success but with a united front they may have some hope. I think it´s more about gathering goodwill from those countries then it is about litteral agression against Israel.

Of cource it would be preferable if aid could be gathered in a more constructive and peacefull way but with the current state of politics, particularly in Europe, that´s probably out of the question.

Sad.

I wonder wether Iran realy does have signifficant nuclear power, my reasoning is that if they had then the U.S. would probably know about it and probably wouldn´t be considdering a attack. It´s one thing to attack another country, it´s quite another to do so and risk losing a good chunk of your own.... I´ve been thinking; there may have been something to this cold war concept of nuclear weapons as a assurance of peace after all. The U.S. isn´t attacking countries like South Afrika or France, even North Korea who only seems to have modest amounts of nuclear weapons seems safe.

To be clear; I´m, not advocating aiming nuclear weapons at the U.S. just saying I could understand people feeling forced to do so in the hope of averting atrocities similar to the ones we´ve seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam._________________Kassen

Kassen, you don't like it when the US treatens to invade The Hague, but you see Iran's statements as "making sense". When you pointed this policy out to me I publically denounced it, as I denounce this insanity from Iran now.

I think you are right, though, about the motivations. Sadam used the Palestinians as pawns for the same reason, to make him appear to be a hero in the Islamic cause.

You also have a point about nuclear weapons - they are effective deterants._________________--Howard
my music and other stuff

well, the cold war approach does work, assuming the leaders of the country care about their own lives and the lives of the residents of their country. certainly, in the case of iraq, saddam wasn't that concerned about the safety of "his people" (as evidenced by chemical weapons attacks and 800,000 of his people in mass graves). once nucs get into the hands of "terrorist groups" who are not geographically based, however, and there is no specific target to strike back against, this all goes to pot. after 9/11, it was clear (and still is) that the government of afghanistan was playing the informed host for al queda, and defined an actual target....who do you bomb/retaliate against/hold responsible when a small group that has no clear geographical base plants a bomb in a city (actually, this is much of the problem in israel...hamas and other terrorists live among less radical palistinans. carpet bombing will outrage rather than deter, and even bulldozing a specific house, or blowing up a specific convoy of vehicles is seen as an attack against all palistinians)? what israel can/should/would do if a hamas homocide bomber straps a nuc onto a vest and blows themselves up in a shopping mall is a horrifying thought, but it seems unavoidable. so the cold war thing works as long as only "the big boys" have nucs...but at some point the small players will get them (and chem/bio weapons), and things will get messy with no clear retaliation target to deter such attacks.

to me (and i haven't been following the iran situation terribly closely), an attack from the us is far from inevitable. the population in iran is very young, and there are strong liberl elements within it. it seems that the eu is terribly concerned (as they should be) about irans nuclear ambitions...and iran is demanding that the world supply them with nuc power technology. giving a nation who's president is demanding that israel gets wiped off the globe such technology seems not possible to me. when iraq was using it's nuc power technolgoy to develop weapons (86?), israel had the guts (and unexpected skill) to destroy the reactors. when iraq was sending scuds into israel, they had the restraint to allow the us to take care of the military actions (so as not to "inflame" the rest of the arab world against israel)...but surely they had the military might to take care of things themselves if need be.

to me, the "logical conclusion" to these statements by iran's president is thus: no one will be able to share nuclear power technology with iran, so they will "have to develop it themselves". clearly iran has ambitions for weapons as well as electricity, and given this strong anti israeli rhetoric from the president, it will be impossible for israel to allow this to happen....making some kind of attack (by israel or an ally like the us) necessary...thus "proving" that the "zionist regiem" is looking to attack islam.

"It is so easy for someone to say the occupation is the cause of problem but we should not give them the excuse to attack us," Abbas said on Wednesday, warning that those who take the law into their own hands "should be confronted with an iron fist".

....if hamas had nucs, would the "cold war deterant" prevent them from using them...i think not.

also, you might consider that europe is a much easier target for iranian based nucs than the us is.

Kassen, you don't like it when the US treatens to invade The Hague, but you see Iran's statements as "making sense". When you pointed this policy out to me I publically denounced it, as I denounce this insanity from Iran now.

I think you are right, though, about the motivations. Sadam used the Palestinians as pawns for the same reason, to make him appear to be a hero in the Islamic cause.

You also have a point about nuclear weapons - they are effective deterants.

I understand how that could look conflicting but I think the situation is quite different. I think Iran is feeling threatened and sees very few options. We have a Dutch saying that means; "A cat pressured in a corner becomes dangerous" I think Iran isd being presured in a corner and is looking for alies. Of cource it´s looking for alies in a very unsympathetic way but I wonder how many options they have.

I think there´s a huge difference between threatning a country hoping to ward off a invasion and threatning a country to prevent war criminals from being judged, even if it´s quite clear that one shouldn´t threaten countries like that in general.

Imagine I was right for a second; if this would work, if some of the other arab countries would now see Iran as a close alie and unite with it to some degree then this might stop a U.S. invasion there. I would hope that at that point they wouldn´t see any reason to actually attack Israel and many lives could be saved._________________Kassen

Deknow; that´s one analysis, I´m not going to cover all of those points, I´d just like you to considder what country -only a short while ago- anounced the willingness to use nuclear weapons "pre-emptively".

It also striked me that there are three countries mentioned here speciffically; Israel, Iraq (particularly under Sadam) and Afghanistan (particularly under the rule of the Taliban). Can you guess what those three seemingly unrelated governments have in common? I think that Iran lives in fear of joininmg that group. As usual fear leads to unfortunate actions._________________Kassen

Actually, what is clear is that terrorists are an EXTREME minority of the population. Despite Isreal & the US military might, we are fairly helpless. If YOU really wanted to blow up another oklahoma federal building, how hard would it *really* be, and who do you forsee stopping you?

I would hope that at that point they wouldn´t see any reason to actually attack Israel and many lives could be saved.

uhhh, the only thing that will (and does) keep israel from being attacked is it's military might, and the military might of the us. this is clear to anyone who pays attention.

deknow

So, why do you think they need this military might? You see, there are quite a few countries around without any military might that don´t get over-run.

The most interesting analysis of the Israelina situation I heard came from a close friend of mine. He told me what amount of money the U.S. sends to Israel every year in military aid. He then brought up the option of simply taking that amount and deviding it equally amongst all people living in that area, regardless of religion. It was quite a sum per-person. He then pointed out that this would overnight create a huge middle-class. He also pointed out that the midle-class in generally conservative and inclined to want to avoid wars and so on. I forgott he exact numbers, sorry.

That´s both the simpelest and most believable solution I ever heard for that situation. It doesn´t involve any deaths, nobody needs to be moved and "best of all"; no extra costs are involved._________________Kassen

Actually, what is clear is that terrorists are an EXTREME minority of the population. Despite Isreal & the US military might, we are fairly helpless. If YOU really wanted to blow up another oklahoma federal building, how hard would it *really* be, and who do you forsee stopping you?

(YOU being whomever is reading this)

Against people, more then against governments, "not pissing anyone off" seems to be a good idea. Democracy, combined with the elected actually representing the voters sounds like a nice way of implementing that, I would be greatly in favour of doing that as soon as possble.

I woulds like to propose Europe as a nice testing ground for that. We´ve come a long way in that direction. Much like Iraq and the U.S. we have elections in place already. We don´t have a secret police that tortures you if you don´t vote corectly, we don´t have situations with family members of future politicians being in charge of counting the votes, it´s just that pesky last "represent" step where it sadly goes wrong. I have some hope still...._________________Kassen

Kass- You have to be careful using words like "conservative" when speaking to Americans. Here, the current government calls themselves the "conservative" party (Republicans). Conservatives here generally support military operations as a solution (until hindsight kicks in, as it is doing now), and always increase military spending over domestic spending when in control. American Conservatives might disagree with this statement, but history would show otherwise. Also, a giant payout to Isreal could not happen with a conservative government...they strongly believe in a "trickle down theory"...which means giving money to the rich & businesses, and letting it trickle down to the working class.

On the other hand the "liberal" party (or Democrats), have a more domestic view of government, supporting the "We the People" part of our constitution a bit more than the unwritten "we the businessmen" part of it.

...i think your friend is mistaken. one possible error is the definition of "billion" and "trillion", and how it differs between the us and much of europe (this is a huge cause of confusion, especailly when stats are interpolated back and forth a few times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dpbsmith/Billion
...will show that whereas in the us, a billion is 10^9, in the netherlands a biljoen is 10^12 ...this causes much confusion, and is likely part of where your friend was mistaken.

the us sends (in both military and non military aid) about 3billion to israel annually. israel's population is about 6 million....if that 3 billion was distrubted to that number equally, it would be about $500/person (your friend might have thought it was $500,000). the average israeli [edit: mothly] income is about $1,600 (usd). while $500/year is a nice extra chunk of change, it hardly creates a middle class.

as far as israel's need for military might, it is needed for the same (stupid) reason why 6 million jews were murdered by the nazi regiem in ww2....they are jews. the 6 day war, the yom kippor war, scud missles, etc were waged from not the population within israel, but from the surrounding nations who's governments are anti-jew. if you don't see this, i'm not sure what to say.

Oops, yes, I meant "conservative" literally, as in "inclined to want to keep things like they are" which indeed with a extremely large upper-middle class will probably include quite a bit of busness men too. I didn´t mean it in the U.S. sense, epecially because a future Israel with both rich Jews and rich Muslims will probably not be too inclined to stress Chrstianity. Come to think of it; that would make sense as a sort of conceptual middle ground (JOKE! sorry)_________________Kassen

Deknow; that´s one analysis, I´m not going to cover all of those points, I´d just like you to considder what country -only a short while ago- anounced the willingness to use nuclear weapons "pre-emptively".

well, an official policy that would only use nucs as a retaliation against nucs or other wmd's does little to discourage small groups that have no perenant geographical base, and no responisiblity for a population (and willing to die and have others die for a religious cause) from making preperations (and excecuting) a strike against the us...it also does little to discourage governments from taking active measures that such preperations don't occur on their soil

Kassen wrote:

It also striked me that there are three countries mentioned here speciffically; Israel, Iraq (particularly under Sadam) and Afghanistan (particularly under the rule of the Taliban). Can you guess what those three seemingly unrelated governments have in common? I think that Iran lives in fear of joininmg that group. As usual fear leads to unfortunate actions.

Deknow, you are very likely right about the numbers, I will forward your math to my friend. In a strange way I´m happy that one isn´t true since it would be so utterly stupid....

I´m not so sure the surrounding countries realy *are* anti-jew. They are certainly against Israel as it currently stands but that´s not the same. I know Jews that aren´t too fond of Israelian politics, for example. Of close there is a close link between the founding of Israel and the second world war but we can´t keep using the deaths of 6million Jews more then half a century ago to excuse any number of terrible acts in the present. I think it´s unrealist to see Israel as a innocent state surrounded by hordes of neigbours that are fueled by unfounded agression. Just compare Israels borders now to where they were when it was founded and considder that borders typically don´t move around all by themselves....

I wonder wether the surounding countries would still be so mad with a more reasonable Israel._________________Kassen

Deknow; that´s one analysis, I´m not going to cover all of those points, I´d just like you to considder what country -only a short while ago- anounced the willingness to use nuclear weapons "pre-emptively".

well, an official policy that would only use nucs as a retaliation against nucs or other wmd's does little to discourage small groups that have no perenant geographical base, and no responisiblity for a population (and willing to die and have others die for a religious cause) from making preperations (and excecuting) a strike against the us...it also does little to discourage governments from taking active measures that such preperations don't occur on their soil

Which makes it ok to throw nuclear bombs at countries suspected of containing some citisens that might be planning such things? It´s all becoming utterly insane.

Do you realise that the rest of the world knows there is only one country at the moment which is known to both own nuclear bombs and have a history of sponsoring terrorism? Do you find it odd that still the majority of the world does not think it´s a good idea to make arbitray people who just happen to live in that country suffer for the actions of a few madmen?

...the billion trillion thing is something that should be a front page story in the wall street journal...most people are unaware of it, and many statistics are severly distorted as a result...when i was first told of this (by a friend who is into many esoteric beliefs), i had a hard time believing it...it seems so unlikely, but it is true.

i agree that there are certianly problems in israel, and in it's government. however, as i noted earlier, even bulldozing a specific house that is used for making bombs is seen by the entire arab world (at least as far as any media i've been able to read) is seen as oppressing all palistinians, and an excuse for blowing up busses and resturants. in that kind of climate, i'm not sure what can be done more reasonably.

as far as the "expanding border of israel", it was expanded largely due to attacks from all sides (by the governments and armies of the surrounding nations), and the cosequent (and unexpected) might of the israeli military pushing the borders back. part of this was preemptive, but i have never been able to find documentation that made me believe for a second that attacks weren't immenant, and designed to kill all the jews in israel.

i have no doubt (and abbas seems to think so as well) that israeli hostility would cease if attacks from palesitinan extremests stopped. there seems to be no will or pressure from the palistinan population at large to discourage such attacks from extremeists. considering the broad based and random attacks from the extremeists, the israeli responses seem quite targeted and specific. reports of "massacres" , like that of jenin are generally proven to be false.

this is, of course, an ugly situation all around, but it is clear that israel in general (and there are exceptions) acts with a great deal of restraint (it is difficult, dangerous and expensive to use a helicopter to blow up a specific car with a specific person in it...much cheaper to drop bombs from airplaines and use machine guns to keep people too far away to throw rocks). i think it would be a great misintreptation of facts to think that israel would continue attacking palistinans if attacks from palistinans ceased (or even seemed to be unpopular and the pa arrested people for doing such things). there would be a huge ammount of international aid available to such a palistinan popluation (and likely much of that coming directly from israel in the way of technolgoy to grow food and such).

blaming the current anti-jew sentiment in arab nations (and govenments) ignores the facts that palistinans were encouraged by the "jews" to stay durring the inception of israel as a nation. arab leaders told them to flee,and that they would rid the area of jews, and the arabs could then return. 3 major attacks on israel from the surrounding arab nations were unable to accomplish this...this was before the current state of affairs.

...it's difficult in this emotional and politically charged subject to find objective history (and this website is far from it). however, i do believe that the history provided here is basically accurate, and should be interesting to most (as this is not generally spoken of). of particular intrest is the relationship between jordan, palastine, and arafat. if someone has a better version of this history, i would be most interested to read it.

jk, interesting reading, and for sure, more details that what i posted. as far as being more "neutral", i'm not so sure. one big gap (from my reading) is the lack of documentation of israel's encouragement of arabs to stay, and arab nations encouragment for them to leave (with the promise of return after the defete of the jews...and the aquistioin of jewish property). whether it's any more or less balanced than what i posted, i have no idea.

The tone certainly strikes me as very factual and I quite like the introductory note.

While Deknow´s point is certainl interesting I´m not sure any of this is realy all that relevant to the parties here. I think Iran mentioned a atack on Israel primarily because that´s something some other countries would aree with and they need agreement. It strikes me as a mainly symbolic move._________________Kassen

....i can't quite understand this point of view coexisting with your outrage of the serviceman's protection act (the "invade the hague" clause), unless it's just being defensive of your home. (as howard pointed out)

don't get me wrong, i understand your contention that there is a differance because the statement about iraq will win favor from other countries rather than the us protecting it's own people...i just don't think it's a valid distinction. is the kkk "just symbolic" because they exist as a group? certainly not if they are lynching people, and probably not if they are burning crosses on people's lawns.

from where i sit (which is not the most objective seat in the house), iran seems much more likely to support homocide bombers in israel than the us is to invade the netherlands.

in addition to all that, i'm not sure how a "factual tone" translates into "factual", i think one must be more objective if one is to evaluate whether something is true or not.
deknow

Yes, ok, I can see that. To me the difference is that Iran is pushed into a corner, has no real options and is hoping to ward off a invasion, thus avoiding the torture and colapse of civil order that seem to be the price of freedom and democracy these days while the US is threatning with a invasion in the hope of avoiding justice at the hands of one of the most respected international authorities.

To be clear; I am against both threats and against both invasions. I didn't say it was a good plan, I said I could understand where it came from. In fact I think it's a extremely regretable move. Much better would be doing what I think the Netherlands should have done; apeal to the international comunity and ask for help. Sadly the Dutch government would probably be honoured to so worthy of mr. Bush's atention that he'd deem it desireable to invade and aparently Iran is too proud to simply ask for help._________________Kassen

kassen,
i'm not sure i understand why you think an invasion of iran by the us is somehow immenant. i haven't been following this terribly closely, but it seems (from what i have gathered) that it is mostly european nations that are having conflicts and negotiations with iran over the nuclear issue.

...and that is what seems so curious to me about this whole situation. ...no that the president of iran would make such a statement, but that he would do so in the middle of these nuclear negotiations...as i pointed out before, it will make it impossible for any nation to go in and build nuclear power plants in iran (which is what they are demanding).

if there is something specific you see that hints at a us invasion of iran, i'd like to hear it.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum

Please support our site. If you click through and buy from our affiliate partners, we earn a small commission.